Conroy420 wrote:This movie is supposed to be this over-the-top right?
It was so cheesy, the director was gunning for a 1950's sci-fi b movie vibe wasn't he? It was hysterical at times, that must of been the idea, cause if not, I'm amazed.
This is either a really fun parody, or a truly awful film. Which is it?
Pacino86845 wrote:Really? I didn't know that could happen w/ projectionists? How do they screw it up? Like they get the film 1:33:1 and they have to set it to the correct aspect ratio by aligning it?
Fried Gold wrote:Conroy420 wrote:This movie is supposed to be this over-the-top right?
It was so cheesy, the director was gunning for a 1950's sci-fi b movie vibe wasn't he? It was hysterical at times, that must of been the idea, cause if not, I'm amazed.
This is either a really fun parody, or a truly awful film. Which is it?
The latter.
For a better pastiche of 50s horror, see the black & white version of The Mist.
Conroy420 wrote:Fried Gold wrote:Conroy420 wrote:This movie is supposed to be this over-the-top right?
It was so cheesy, the director was gunning for a 1950's sci-fi b movie vibe wasn't he? It was hysterical at times, that must of been the idea, cause if not, I'm amazed.
This is either a really fun parody, or a truly awful film. Which is it?
The latter.
For a better pastiche of 50s horror, see the black & white version of The Mist.
After mulling it over today, I'm starting to think the film was intended to have this tone. There were too many moments were it just seemed to revel in its absurdity (cheese and crackers) for it to be unintentional.
If you watch the sci-fi b movies of yesterday, they were intended atthe time to be serious. Now you watch them and the have this really goofy vibe to them. The same tone as 'The Happening'.
I think Shyamalan should've went for a more full-on route. It would have been a more difficult sell, and that's probably why any sample of tone from the film is not on display in any trailers.
so sorry wrote:So perhaps a few decades from now Mystery Science Theater 6000 will do a send-up on The Happening!
Fuck that, I want them to do it NOW~!
papalazeru wrote:so sorry wrote:So perhaps a few decades from now Mystery Science Theater 6000 will do a send-up on The Happening!
Fuck that, I want them to do it NOW~!
A few beers and about 5 friends should do the trick....at your local cinema, NOW!
Conroy420 wrote:Fried Gold wrote:Conroy420 wrote:This movie is supposed to be this over-the-top right?
It was so cheesy, the director was gunning for a 1950's sci-fi b movie vibe wasn't he? It was hysterical at times, that must of been the idea, cause if not, I'm amazed.
This is either a really fun parody, or a truly awful film. Which is it?
The latter.
For a better pastiche of 50s horror, see the black & white version of The Mist.
After mulling it over today, I'm starting to think the film was intended to have this tone. There were too many moments were it just seemed to revel in its absurdity (cheese and crackers) for it to be unintentional.
If you watch the sci-fi b movies of yesterday, they were intended atthe time to be serious. Now you watch them and the have this really goofy vibe to them. The same tone as 'The Happening'.
I think Shyamalan should've went for a more full-on route. It would have been a more difficult sell, and that's probably why any sample of tone from the film is not on display in any trailers.
so sorry wrote:So perhaps a few decades from now Mystery Science Theater 6000 will do a send-up on The Happening!
Fuck that, I want them to do it NOW~!
Maui wrote:Does yellow really make you laugh?
Lady Sheridan wrote:This thread is the funniest thing I have seen in awhile!!
Lady Sheridan wrote:This thread is the funniest thing I have seen in awhile!!
I did hear, somewhere, that it WAS intentionally a b-movie, but somehow I think it is Shamalyan trying to cover his ass. It sounds hilarious. I can't decide whether I want to spoil it, or enjoy the stupidity on DVD someday.
WinslowLeach wrote:Is it FUN bad or just stupid bad? Theres a difference. If its FUN bad I might want to watch it. If its stupid bad and people are trying to get me to see it I dont. If this movie was worth watching at all for a fun factor wouldnt people give it more than a O or 1?
TheBaxter wrote:me to give a movie that low of a score it would have to actually feature killing live puppies or something like that.
TheBaxter wrote:on the one hand, MNS takes himself too seriously to make an intentionally funny b-movie.
on the other hand, MNS's ego would never allow him to admit one of his movies is unintentionally funny or a failure in any way.
Al Shut wrote:TheBaxter wrote:on the one hand, MNS takes himself too seriously to make an intentionally funny b-movie.
on the other hand, MNS's ego would never allow him to admit one of his movies is unintentionally funny or a failure in any way.
Shyamalan calls 'The Happening' the best B movie ever
The movie is really about ... this one moment. This moment of, if you realize that in 30 seconds you were gonna die, in a minute you were gonna die ... you're not fighting anymore ...it's over. You've given up that possibility. What will you say to your loved one in that last moment?
Al Shut wrote:TheBaxter wrote:on the one hand, MNS takes himself too seriously to make an intentionally funny b-movie.
on the other hand, MNS's ego would never allow him to admit one of his movies is unintentionally funny or a failure in any way.
Shyamalan calls 'The Happening' the best B movie ever
Shyamalan: No. 1, it's a B movie. This is the best B movie you will ever see, that's it. That's what this is. If there's other things that stick to your ribs as you walk out, that's great, but it's supposed to be, you know, zombies eating flesh.
CNN: So when you say B, you don't mean honeybee?
Shyamalan: No, I meant like, you know, zombies and killer things running around.
Al Shut wrote:TheBaxter wrote:on the one hand, MNS takes himself too seriously to make an intentionally funny b-movie.
on the other hand, MNS's ego would never allow him to admit one of his movies is unintentionally funny or a failure in any way.
Shyamalan calls 'The Happening' the best B movie ever
TheBaxter wrote:i wonder how much is just hyperbole and shyamalan-bashing. he' pretty easy to hate and (largely by his own doing) it's impossible now to separate the man from his films, so if he makes a bad film people are eager to jump all over him and give it the worst rating they can. i have a feeling if this was made by anyone else (except uwe boll) it would probably get 3s and 4s and 5s, not 0s and 1s. i mean that's a really harsh score, for me to give a movie that low of a score it would have to actually feature killing live puppies or something like that.
TheBaxter wrote:i wonder how much is just hyperbole and shyamalan-bashing. he' pretty easy to hate and (largely by his own doing) it's impossible now to separate the man from his films, so if he makes a bad film people are eager to jump all over him and give it the worst rating they can. i have a feeling if this was made by anyone else (except uwe boll) it would probably get 3s and 4s and 5s, not 0s and 1s. i mean that's a really harsh score, for me to give a movie that low of a score it would have to actually feature killing live puppies or something like that.
Vegeta wrote:To me for a film to get a 0 or 1 it literally has to be a complete and horrible mess. Big giant plot holes, scenes missing, actors breaking character, bad lighting or lighting obviously in frame, boom mics in frame... shit like that. It just has to be on the level of poorly made student films to garner that kind of rating from me. I just feel that there has to be a little residual Shyamalan hate to give out that kind of review (not doubting you Pacino)
Pacino86845 wrote:The tone: It wasn't scary, the only "surprise" came purely because of a sound effect, not a combination of a surprising visual and sound effect. That's it, just one "scary" second in the entire film.
WinslowLeach wrote:Is it FUN bad or just stupid bad? Theres a difference. If its FUN bad I might want to watch it. If its stupid bad and people are trying to get me to see it I dont. If this movie was worth watching at all for a fun factor wouldnt people give it more than a O or 1?
TheBaxter wrote:i guess everyone has different standards for rating films (which is why ratings don't really mean much anyway). a 0 or 1 for me would mean i literally hate the people who made the film and want to see them suffer and die. i'd have to feel the same way about them as i do about people who post pictures of their dead juggalo babies on myspace, or paint swastikas and penii on garage doors, or who sue dry cleaners for $50,000 for losing a pair of pants. that level of hatred. the only film i can even think of off the top of my head that generates that level of hate in me is Crash (the one that got an oscar).
Maui wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:The tone: It wasn't scary, the only "surprise" came purely because of a sound effect, not a combination of a surprising visual and sound effect. That's it, just one "scary" second in the entire film.
I know exactly which ONE you are talking about too. It was definitely the sound effect.
DaleTremont wrote:
I'm dying to see it now out of a morbid curiosity.
Maui wrote:Nice BP, so yeah, if the story was basically all rewritten, sure, would have been way better.![]()
The whole idea of the smaller groups having less of a chance of getting attacked by the killer wind was a bunch of horse pucky.
I think the trees should have come to life, like in the Wizard of Oz, maybe thrown a few apples at Mark and Zoey.
Anyone want a hotdog?
Maui wrote:Sure, there's a great little hotdog place just around the corner from me, called "Sam's Hotdogs".
Ok folks, I'm done in this thread, I feel I've gotten my point across, oh 20 posts ago. lol
It's just negative energy now, so, yeah.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests